PTAB

IPR2017-02200

Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Sennco Solutions Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus for Securing a Device
  • Brief Description: The ’809 patent discloses a security apparatus for displaying portable electronic devices, such as tablets or phones, in retail locations. The system comprises a head unit attached to the device, a post mounted to a surface, and a tether cable connecting the head unit to the post, allowing customers to handle the device while it remains secured.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Seabrook - Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13 are obvious over Seabrook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seabrook (WO 2012/069816).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Seabrook, a reference disclosing an electronic device display and security unit, teaches every element of the challenged claims. The "post" of claim 1 was mapped to Seabrook's multi-component security module and docking pod assembly. The "head unit" was equated with Seabrook's "display module 39," which attaches to the electronic device. Seabrook's "tether 504" and its connector "end 700" were argued to meet the "cable" and "connector" limitations. The "spring" element was mapped to Seabrook's elastic "collar 11," which secures the tether, and the "key" element was mapped to Seabrook's "key 12," used to disengage the collar and release the tether.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): While relying on a single reference, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would be motivated to make a minor modification. Seabrook shows its post assembly extending both above and below a display panel. Petitioner contended it was a well-known design choice to mount such security posts entirely on top of a display surface, and a POSA would have found it obvious to modify Seabrook to this known configuration.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as the argument centers on applying Seabrook's own components and making a simple, predictable modification to its mounting configuration.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Seabrook and Kinnear - Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13 are obvious over Seabrook in view of Kinnear.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seabrook (WO 2012/069816) and Kinnear (Patent 4,335,931).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Ground 1. Petitioner argued that while Seabrook discloses using an "electrical feeder cable" as the tether, it lacks detail on the specific electrical connection mechanism. Kinnear was introduced to supply this missing element, disclosing a reliable quick-connect/disconnect electrical terminal. Petitioner proposed modifying Seabrook by replacing its mechanical "collar 11" spring and "end 700" connector with Kinnear's "leaf spring 16" and "terminal 18" to create a robust and removable electrical connection between the post and head unit.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA seeking to implement Seabrook's electrical tether would need a reliable connector. Petitioner argued a POSA would have looked to references like Kinnear, which addresses the precise problem of creating a reliable, selectively removable electrical connection. Kinnear explicitly states its principles are applicable to electrical connectors beyond its specific embodiment, motivating its application to the retail security field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high likelihood of success, as incorporating a known type of electrical connector (from Kinnear) into a system requiring one (Seabrook) is a straightforward application of known technologies to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Seabrook and Rabinowitz - Claims 5 and 8-12 are obvious over Seabrook in view of Rabinowitz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seabrook (WO 2012/069816) and Rabinowitz (Patent 7,667,601).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses different claims related to alarm features. Petitioner asserted that Seabrook's system is vulnerable to theft if a thief separates the electronic device from the head unit's adhesive. Rabinowitz was introduced because it solves this exact problem by teaching a plunger switch in the head unit that triggers an alarm if the device is forcibly removed. This ground also challenges claims related to monitoring a charging cable. Rabinowitz was argued to teach circuitry for detecting the disconnection of a power cable and triggering a wireless alarm, a feature absent from Seabrook.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to enhance the security of the Seabrook display. Recognizing the vulnerability of an adhesive-only attachment, a POSA would naturally look to prior art in the same field, like Rabinowitz, that incorporates an alarm for device removal. Similarly, to ensure continuous charging and prevent theft by unplugging, a POSA would incorporate Rabinowitz's power monitoring and alarm features.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be highly expected because both references are in the same technical field of retail security displays, and the combination involves adding well-understood alarm functionalities from Rabinowitz to the basic mechanical structure of Seabrook to address known security shortcomings.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 5 and 8-12 based on the combination of Seabrook, Kinnear, and Rabinowitz, which relied on combining the rationales presented in Grounds 2 and 3.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "spring": Petitioner proposed the construction "an elastic component which stores mechanical energy and exerts a force when deformed." This broad, dictionary-based definition was argued as necessary to encompass Seabrook's "collar 11," which functions as a spring but may not be a conventional coil spring.
  • "post": Petitioner proposed the construction "a structure serving as a display support made up of one or more components, at least a portion of the structure extending upwardly or outwardly." This construction avoids a single-piece requirement, which Petitioner argued was critical for the post to read on Seabrook's multi-component security module assembly.
  • "top surface": Petitioner argued this term must be construed broadly to include the surface containing the hole for the cable, not merely the uppermost plane of the post. This interpretation was deemed necessary for the claim language to cover the patent's own disclosed embodiment and to map onto the Seabrook reference.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 9,303,809 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.